He just has some technical things to work on - stance, footwork, etc. I don't think strength/size are a real concern, since he's 6'6", 280 lbs. as a high school senior.

I'm not saying he deserves to be outside the top 150, but we should at least consider the idea that he's not one of the top 150 players in the nation. The other sites have him around #80, so it's not like he's 5-star material to anyone. To make an analogy to the NFL draft, even if he's the 200th best player in the nation, he's still worthy of an NFL draft pick.

They also gave William Campbell a grade of 79 and ranked him at #22 at his position when everybody else had him as a 5-star.

Surprise, surprise...people who try to predict the future are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Picking out one example of failure (Junior Hemingway) or success (William Campbell) at accurately predicting the future isn't conclusive either way.

You are right on BWC. I wish people would use him less for how great ESPN rankings are. I took a look at the 08 class, they had in their 150, they had many Michigan players in their 150 which didnt pan out. Espn gets some things right and some things wrong. It would be interesting to see how their ratings compared with the other services really pan out.

Other then the fumble on kick off he didn't play terrible in coverage. The td pass was a perfectly placed ball and he had good coverage. Can't stop everything. He had a really good week though and had a lot of practice hype. Just suprised bolden wasnt higher.

OL and DL. Kids coming out of HS usually have either been physically dominate with questionable technique or undersized for college with excellent technique. You have no way of knowing how the smaller kid will handle the increased weight or if the physically dominant will ever develop technique.

I actually think cornerbacks have a fairly high rate of success with respect to recruiting rankings. The skill positions are generally the easiest to project, from what I've gathered. Offensive line is the most questionable position group. There are high school tight ends and 2-star/3-star kids who get picked in the first round of the NFL Draft.

I would agree about Richardson not being in the top 3, but I don't think he is particularly overrated or likely to turn out to be a bust.

The only complaint I hear about Richardson is his size, scouts are pretty universal in saying that he has the speed, swivel, skills and mental make up already to be a very good natural corner. He just has a slightly lower ceiling than a lot of corners because of the matchup problems his size will always leave him liable to.

Pretty ridiculous it was on their network and the game had no affect on their standings. Pipkins deserves much better, personally don't think T-rich is playing top 150 at the moment, but Ross and Bolden should prolly be in there

Yup they are updated! Tom lunginbill is the biggest joke in the world. Asked y Shutt is higher rank than pipkins said have u seen film? That's just y every other service has pipkins ranked higher than Shutt!

It would be interesting to have known their justification for that. Did they think he didn't have the tools to play DT and that's the reason they rated him on offense? Or were they just toally out to lunch and it was just a case of a broken clock being right twice a day?

Some sites have Richardson rated as our lowest recruit in their 300-250-247-150, ESPN has him rated as our highest recruit. Thats a pretty big discrepency. Seems like we casual bloggers do a better job following recruiting than these services do for a living at times. I liked the average ranking spreadsheet across all services someone posted on here during the summer. Very informative, and plenty of lolz.

Terry Richardson was pretty high on 247's list at one point (now he's #142 overall), so it's not like he's being pooh-poohed by every recruiting site out there. He's #68 on ESPN, #142 on 247, and #224 on Rivals. Somebody's bound to be wrong, but we won't know whether it's ESPN or Rivals or whoever for another three or four years.

For ESPN to not look at the results of all-star games as being all that important? Is there a lot of history to suggest that that the stars of those games deserve an outsized bump for their performance?